Leaderboard

Granted, I'm not the greatest communicator and can be clear as mud sometimes – but I also think some of the confusion comes from your assumption that PFAL's criteria are the standard for determining the accuracy of the Genesis account. one of PFAL's many weaknesses is the tendency to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you want to sell the scientifically implausible: Need enough water for a global flood? Teach there's water outside the universe. Maybe I should state my position a different way. I look for the original sense of Scripture (historical, cultural, and grammatical) and usually find Its unscientific language harmonious with science – even though the Bible expresses it in non-technical terms. Genesis 1:1 explains how it all began: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. A scientific explanation of how it all began can be found at space.com website: "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." The Big Bang Theory One obvious difference between the above two explanations of the origin of the universe is that one is non-technical and the other is scientific. I believe they both describe the same event. Another difference is that the Genesis account attributes the creation of the universe to God. The scientific statement leaves God out of the picture. I'm tempted to think our brief discussion may follow a similar track. Yes "conclusion" may be a good word to use; I do not see the point of any further discussion since no matter how many different ways I say that PFAL sucks and goes against the grain of seeing the natural, original, and general sense of Scripture – you continue to shove me in that box. So you say there was no Adam and Eve. I start further back than that. I believe there's a Creator. I believe He created the universe. Maybe it sounds childish - but i figure if He could create the universe He can do anything. and so it follows from that I believe He inspired people to write His Word. The more I learn about this world the more I see Scripture and science as a good fit. I could be way off base – but I'm ok with that. Maybe the only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the role of an apologist - debate is not really my thing.

See, T-Bone, that's a fundamental difference in your systems. Raf's going "Genesis is unreliable, I don't trust the Bible. Therefore, the Bible's not from God, and since the Bible's not from God, there's no God, and since there's no God, but we exist, we exist without having been created, and the universe exists without having been created. It all goes back to Genesis. Your approach sounds like it looks at the universe, and dismisses the idea that the universe couldn't have been created, so there was a Creator that created it, and so on. (I could be wrong, that might not be your approach.) So, you're both focusing on different things. Since this thread's specifically about Genesis, a discussion on the science would most likely be a very poor fit.

I'm not trying to shove you in any box. I'm trying to address specific points you made. Your post made it appear you believed Adam and Eve were historical people and that the genealogies in Genesis were legit, if not complete. I addressed what you said, not PFAL. Regarding the flood, I addressed what you said, not PFAL. The only way to harmonize scripture and science is to distort one, the other or both. You offered an alternative way of looking at parts of genesis, a way that differed from TWIs views on the same topics. I demonstrated why I do not accept those alternative explanations. PFAL has nothing to do with it. I think the internal evidence of the Bible is that these stories are to be taken literally as history, and it was only when they were demonstrated NOT to be history that alternative explanations emerged. If Adam and Eve were not literal historical figures, then important sections of the Epistles no longer make sense. So it's not a small matter in my mind. But honest people disagree. You're an honest person. And I thank you for sharing your thoughts.